Introduction
(Why You Should Consider This Scenario)
(Why You Should Consider This Scenario)
If you don't care to watch the Episodes of my documentary series (and follow the narrative I tried to set) and just want to read the most "Nutshell" version of my scenario and supporting evidence, then I give you that option. First, read this "Introduction" page, and then go to the individual pages below:
Zapruder Film Alteration (If you are unfamiliar with the evidence that the Zapruder film is a forged, altered product)
What Happened - Shot 1
What Happened - Shot 2
What Happened - Shot 3
What Happened - Shot 4
What Happened - Shot 5
Don't skip this "Introduction!" I think that any serious researcher must come to the conclusion that there was at least a conspiracy to cover-up what happened, and my scenario gives a "benign" explanation for that cover-up. This "Introduction" presents some important reasons to consider the AR-15 accident as the reason behind all the government funny-business. My scenario aligns with the acoustical evidence, witness accounts, and other evidence. If you give my work the fair consideration it deserves, I think you will agree that this scenario arguably presents the most fact-based and plausible explanation for what happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.
Zapruder Film Alteration (If you are unfamiliar with the evidence that the Zapruder film is a forged, altered product)
What Happened - Shot 1
What Happened - Shot 2
What Happened - Shot 3
What Happened - Shot 4
What Happened - Shot 5
Don't skip this "Introduction!" I think that any serious researcher must come to the conclusion that there was at least a conspiracy to cover-up what happened, and my scenario gives a "benign" explanation for that cover-up. This "Introduction" presents some important reasons to consider the AR-15 accident as the reason behind all the government funny-business. My scenario aligns with the acoustical evidence, witness accounts, and other evidence. If you give my work the fair consideration it deserves, I think you will agree that this scenario arguably presents the most fact-based and plausible explanation for what happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.
Sections
You can click below to jump to a given section (I finally figured out how to do "jump-links"! Yay!) I recommend reading the whole Introduction in order. However, if you need to take a break and come back, or make a quick reference to something you've already read, then these jump-links will come in handy.
-----
Acknowledgements: Those Who Came Before (Donahue and Others)
The work of ballistics expert Howard Donahue was the inspiration for my own research into the Kennedy assassination. Prior to encountering his work, I had no more knowledge of the assassination than anyone else who occasionally watched a movie or TV documentary about the Kennedy assassination. But when I came across Donahue's fascinating theory of the AR-15 accident, I wanted to know more. I wanted to know if he might have been right. Thus, what started out as a simple questioning of whether Donahue might have been right, became an obsessive quest for truth as I learned more and more facts and details about the assassination, and began the process of sorting facts from opinions, and eventually rearranged the facts to form a picture that--surprisingly--no one else had apparently seen before.
Or, at least, a picture no one else seems to have publicly described before. Sometimes that picture now seems so obvious that I wonder how no one else has smacked their own forehead and exclaimed "Of course!" But oftentimes, people jump to a conclusion, and having jumped to the wrong one, find it difficult if not impossible to find their way back to the right path. Or, upon finding that the assassination was characterized by accidents and mistakes more than malicious plotting to overthrow--a cover-up rather than a coup d'etat--it may be that they lose interest. That the cover-up was "benign" rather than born of malice, however, makes it no less dangerous. The cover-up has contributed to a deep-seated, and well-deserved, mistrust in our institutions. But many people, rather than working to fix the problem, would prefer to either perpetuate the problem, or overthrow the institutions. Both--perpetuation of deceit or overthrow of institutions--are dangerous. The best fix involves acknowledging the wrongful deceit, being transparent about what happened, and resolving to do better moving forward. That has not yet happened.
Howard Donahue was on the right track with his AR-15 accident scenario, but he made some mistakes in his original theory. His mistakes were due not to errors in his thinking, but because:
I’ve corrected Donahue's mistakes and accounted for other evidence (e.g., evidence of two head shots, one from the front and one from the rear), and put together an evidence-based scenario that accounts for all the "conspiracy" evidence, but without reaching the conclusion of a "Deep State conspiracy to murder" the President. This scenario plausibly explains all the evidence pointing towards a cover-up. Moreover, this scenario aligns with the acoustical evidence, especially if one admits that the HSCA mic placement diagram and other evidence has been deliberately misrepresented. Based on the evidence of alterations to the Zapruder Film and autopsy evidence, it is no great leap to accept that the mic-placement diagram was also deliberately misrepresented--especially since the person who created the diagram (James Barger) was not actually present for the acoustical tests, and the list of "street features" he was given to create the diagram is not available for public review. Some researchers have discounted the acoustical evidence entirely, due especially to the inaudible "hold everything secure" supposed "cross-talk," but as Donald Thomas points out, there are alternative explanations for the utterance (if it in fact exists!), and the "coincidences" of test-shot echo match, "order in the data," and "double-bang" of the last two impulses are just too non-coincidental to ignore. So I don't ignore it. Instead, I consider the the "bike with the mike" probably belonged to motorcycle escort officer Douglas Jackson, who was thought by researchers before me to be the "Knoll Rider" who reportedly tried to drive his motorcycle up the hill in response to the shots. With Jackson as the "Knoll Rider" and as having the "Bike with the Mike," the extraneous sounds on the dicta belt tape (engine noises, etc.) fit, and his motorcade position not only perfectly places him to receive the "acoustic shockwave" reportedly in the audio evidence, but also perfectly positions him to have misperceived the AR-15 shot as having come from the Grassy Knoll. Again, all much too "coincidental" to have been actual "coincidence." So I align my work with the acoustical evidence, even though I don't rely on it exclusively. As far as I know, mine is the only scenario that comes close to successfully making this alignment--with the understanding about the mic placement diagram, of course.
The acoustical alignment also requires an acceptance that the side-to-side leeway that the acoustical experts gave for the echo pattern match between the evidence "impulse" pattern and the test-shot echo patterns also apply to front-back variance. That is, the same slight differences in the timing of the echo patterns between the test-shot and dicta belt patterns could not only apply to allow the actual "Grassy Knoll" shooter position to be within 25 feet of one side to either the left or right of the test-shooter's position for that "95% confidence" that the "Grassy Knoll" shooter existed, but also allow for the position of that actual shooter to be on the road in front of the test shooter's position.
That actual shooter was, of course, George Hickey, who fired his AR-15 unintentionally, not on-purpose, because the weapon malfunctioned in an unintended slam-fire discharge. That the weapon was prone to slam-fire discharge (due to the interaction between the too-heavy firing pin and too-sensitive ammunition primer) was revealed by Bonar Menninger, who authored the essential account of Howard Donahue's work in his book Mortal Error. Menninger thereby provided one adjustment to Donahue's original work by suggesting that Hickey didn't even have to pull the trigger for the weapon to fire ("What If Hickey Didn't Pull the Trigger"), whereas Donahue had originally believed that Hickey had pulled the trigger reflexively when he fell over. So modification of Donahue's original theory, even by the most staunch of Donahue loyalists, is not unprecedented.
But despite his mistakes, Donahue's major insight into the AR-15 accident was nothing short of brilliant, and my own work would not have been possible without that original flash of genius. Nor would my work have been possible without the work of others, like Dr. John Costella (who proved the fraudulent nature of various aspects of the Zapruder Film), or Dr. David Mantik (who demonstrated the fraudulent nature of the autopsy images), the courage of first-hand witnesses like Jerrol Custer, James Jenkins, and the Parkland Hospital doctors (who defied the official stories when they spoke their truths), dedicated truth-seekers like Doug Horne (who would not let inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence go unchallenged), and the many researchers whose work pointed me towards evidence and signposts I might otherwise have missed. I owe all of them a debt of gratitude.
The work of ballistics expert Howard Donahue was the inspiration for my own research into the Kennedy assassination. Prior to encountering his work, I had no more knowledge of the assassination than anyone else who occasionally watched a movie or TV documentary about the Kennedy assassination. But when I came across Donahue's fascinating theory of the AR-15 accident, I wanted to know more. I wanted to know if he might have been right. Thus, what started out as a simple questioning of whether Donahue might have been right, became an obsessive quest for truth as I learned more and more facts and details about the assassination, and began the process of sorting facts from opinions, and eventually rearranged the facts to form a picture that--surprisingly--no one else had apparently seen before.
Or, at least, a picture no one else seems to have publicly described before. Sometimes that picture now seems so obvious that I wonder how no one else has smacked their own forehead and exclaimed "Of course!" But oftentimes, people jump to a conclusion, and having jumped to the wrong one, find it difficult if not impossible to find their way back to the right path. Or, upon finding that the assassination was characterized by accidents and mistakes more than malicious plotting to overthrow--a cover-up rather than a coup d'etat--it may be that they lose interest. That the cover-up was "benign" rather than born of malice, however, makes it no less dangerous. The cover-up has contributed to a deep-seated, and well-deserved, mistrust in our institutions. But many people, rather than working to fix the problem, would prefer to either perpetuate the problem, or overthrow the institutions. Both--perpetuation of deceit or overthrow of institutions--are dangerous. The best fix involves acknowledging the wrongful deceit, being transparent about what happened, and resolving to do better moving forward. That has not yet happened.
Howard Donahue was on the right track with his AR-15 accident scenario, but he made some mistakes in his original theory. His mistakes were due not to errors in his thinking, but because:
- he relied on fraudulent evidence (especially the altered Zapruder Film, purported rather than actual back wound location, and the HSCA “cowlick” entrance), thus his acceptance of the Single Bullet Theory and other erroneous aspects;
- he constrained himself to 3 total shots; and
- other evidence (e.g., HSCA and ARRB testimonies) were not yet available to him.
I’ve corrected Donahue's mistakes and accounted for other evidence (e.g., evidence of two head shots, one from the front and one from the rear), and put together an evidence-based scenario that accounts for all the "conspiracy" evidence, but without reaching the conclusion of a "Deep State conspiracy to murder" the President. This scenario plausibly explains all the evidence pointing towards a cover-up. Moreover, this scenario aligns with the acoustical evidence, especially if one admits that the HSCA mic placement diagram and other evidence has been deliberately misrepresented. Based on the evidence of alterations to the Zapruder Film and autopsy evidence, it is no great leap to accept that the mic-placement diagram was also deliberately misrepresented--especially since the person who created the diagram (James Barger) was not actually present for the acoustical tests, and the list of "street features" he was given to create the diagram is not available for public review. Some researchers have discounted the acoustical evidence entirely, due especially to the inaudible "hold everything secure" supposed "cross-talk," but as Donald Thomas points out, there are alternative explanations for the utterance (if it in fact exists!), and the "coincidences" of test-shot echo match, "order in the data," and "double-bang" of the last two impulses are just too non-coincidental to ignore. So I don't ignore it. Instead, I consider the the "bike with the mike" probably belonged to motorcycle escort officer Douglas Jackson, who was thought by researchers before me to be the "Knoll Rider" who reportedly tried to drive his motorcycle up the hill in response to the shots. With Jackson as the "Knoll Rider" and as having the "Bike with the Mike," the extraneous sounds on the dicta belt tape (engine noises, etc.) fit, and his motorcade position not only perfectly places him to receive the "acoustic shockwave" reportedly in the audio evidence, but also perfectly positions him to have misperceived the AR-15 shot as having come from the Grassy Knoll. Again, all much too "coincidental" to have been actual "coincidence." So I align my work with the acoustical evidence, even though I don't rely on it exclusively. As far as I know, mine is the only scenario that comes close to successfully making this alignment--with the understanding about the mic placement diagram, of course.
The acoustical alignment also requires an acceptance that the side-to-side leeway that the acoustical experts gave for the echo pattern match between the evidence "impulse" pattern and the test-shot echo patterns also apply to front-back variance. That is, the same slight differences in the timing of the echo patterns between the test-shot and dicta belt patterns could not only apply to allow the actual "Grassy Knoll" shooter position to be within 25 feet of one side to either the left or right of the test-shooter's position for that "95% confidence" that the "Grassy Knoll" shooter existed, but also allow for the position of that actual shooter to be on the road in front of the test shooter's position.
That actual shooter was, of course, George Hickey, who fired his AR-15 unintentionally, not on-purpose, because the weapon malfunctioned in an unintended slam-fire discharge. That the weapon was prone to slam-fire discharge (due to the interaction between the too-heavy firing pin and too-sensitive ammunition primer) was revealed by Bonar Menninger, who authored the essential account of Howard Donahue's work in his book Mortal Error. Menninger thereby provided one adjustment to Donahue's original work by suggesting that Hickey didn't even have to pull the trigger for the weapon to fire ("What If Hickey Didn't Pull the Trigger"), whereas Donahue had originally believed that Hickey had pulled the trigger reflexively when he fell over. So modification of Donahue's original theory, even by the most staunch of Donahue loyalists, is not unprecedented.
But despite his mistakes, Donahue's major insight into the AR-15 accident was nothing short of brilliant, and my own work would not have been possible without that original flash of genius. Nor would my work have been possible without the work of others, like Dr. John Costella (who proved the fraudulent nature of various aspects of the Zapruder Film), or Dr. David Mantik (who demonstrated the fraudulent nature of the autopsy images), the courage of first-hand witnesses like Jerrol Custer, James Jenkins, and the Parkland Hospital doctors (who defied the official stories when they spoke their truths), dedicated truth-seekers like Doug Horne (who would not let inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence go unchallenged), and the many researchers whose work pointed me towards evidence and signposts I might otherwise have missed. I owe all of them a debt of gratitude.
-----
Addressing the Critics
Before I begin, I would like to address 2 groups of critics:
Critics who reject any theory involving Hickey should consider the following:
Before I begin, I would like to address 2 groups of critics:
- The critics who say the “Hickey did it” theory is “obscene.” Neither Donahue nor myself is claiming that there was anything deliberate about Hickey firing the AR-15. To the contrary, we are saying that this was an accident, and fatal gunshot accidents happen ALL THE TIME. There was even another (2007) instance of an accidental SS discharge, involving Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is now also known that the AR-15 was prone to slam fire discharges, which increases the likelihood of the AR-15 accidental firing.
- The critics who believe that “if Do his trajectory wrong, his entire theory falls apart”—or some variation of that statement, believing that if Donahue got any part of his theory wrong, the entire theory falls apart. This is a logical fallacy, the “part-whole” fallacy. Rejecting the entire notion of a Secret Service accident simply because Donahue was mistaken about other aspects is “throwing the baby out with the wash water.” I believe I’ve corrected Donahue’s errors, and I hope those critics will give me the hearing my work deserves.
Critics who reject any theory involving Hickey should consider the following:
- Why did the SS take the AR-15 out of service immediately after the assassination and refuse to adopt assault style weapons in their arsenal until relatively recently? (Although they did still have Thompson submachine guns, which would potentially “spray” bullets with less discrimination than an AR-15.) It makes no sense that the SS would remove the most powerful weapon in their arsenal, which was particularly suited for eliminating a threat without harming others nearby—unless such an accident occurred.
- Moreover, the Shanklin memo (uncovered by John Hunt) puts “the gun” that fired the bullet “that apparently killed the President” in the hands of the SS on the same day as the assassination. (The TSBD Mannlicher-Carcanno Oswald weapon was never in the possession of the SS, having been transferred directly from the DPD to the FBI).
- Then there are all those nose witnesses, who smelled gun smoke at street level—which would have been impossible to have originated from the TSBD, but makes absolute sense if the AR-15 had been accidentally fired.
-----
Gun Smoke Nose Witnesses
Below is a nose witness diagram from Murder from Within, showing approximate witness locations and also showing wind direction. To this collection of witnesses, I will add Sen. Ralph Yarborough, riding in the car behind Hickey’s, who smelled gun smoke all the way to the hospital, and Parkland triage nurse Bertha Lozano, who smelled the smoke INSIDE the hospital when the entourage arrived. My documentary (episode 3) includes specific witness accounts of the gun smoke odor, including under-oath witness testimony and contemporaneous newspaper accounts. Australian detective Colin McLaren (JFK: The Smoking Gun) described this odor as a "plume of residue" lingering around the gun that had fired.
Below is a nose witness diagram from Murder from Within, showing approximate witness locations and also showing wind direction. To this collection of witnesses, I will add Sen. Ralph Yarborough, riding in the car behind Hickey’s, who smelled gun smoke all the way to the hospital, and Parkland triage nurse Bertha Lozano, who smelled the smoke INSIDE the hospital when the entourage arrived. My documentary (episode 3) includes specific witness accounts of the gun smoke odor, including under-oath witness testimony and contemporaneous newspaper accounts. Australian detective Colin McLaren (JFK: The Smoking Gun) described this odor as a "plume of residue" lingering around the gun that had fired.
Patrolman Earle V. Brown wasn't even stationed in Dealey Plaza proper. He was atop the next Stemmons Freeway overpass, and smelled gun smoke when the motorcade passed beneath him.
The Chicago Tribune had a reporter, Robert Young, who was embedded in the Dallas motorcade. Young probably either exited his vehicle in Dealey Plaza, or returned to Dealey Plaza after the motorcade arrived at Parkland, to interview witnesses, and is probably the source for the Chicago Tribune's important contemporaneous reporting. This page, from 11/23/63, contains some important information, including a description that the area "reeked with the smell of gunpowder":
The Chicago Tribune had a reporter, Robert Young, who was embedded in the Dallas motorcade. Young probably either exited his vehicle in Dealey Plaza, or returned to Dealey Plaza after the motorcade arrived at Parkland, to interview witnesses, and is probably the source for the Chicago Tribune's important contemporaneous reporting. This page, from 11/23/63, contains some important information, including a description that the area "reeked with the smell of gunpowder":
The odor of gun smoke lingered all the way to the hospital, as Senator Ralph Yarborough (in the car behind Hickey's) reported. Yarborough also said that "the third shot he heard might have been a Secret Service man returning the fire."
Parkland Hospital triage nurse Bertha Lozano even smelled "smoke" inside the hospital, as reported in Warren Commission documents.
-----
Secret Service Agents Firing "Submachine Guns"
This Chicago Tribune account also describes Secret Service agents ("Treasury agents in the secret service bodyguard," interrupted by the picture of Tippit and its caption) as having "fired submachine guns" towards the building:
This Chicago Tribune account also describes Secret Service agents ("Treasury agents in the secret service bodyguard," interrupted by the picture of Tippit and its caption) as having "fired submachine guns" towards the building:
There were no "machine guns" or "submachine guns." There was, however, an AR-15--which was such a brand new weapon that civilians frequently described it as a "machine gun" or "submachine gun."
The Volkland photo from the Vancouver Sun files, showing Hickey holding the AR-15 as the motorcade sped towards Parkland Hospital. The caption refers to the AR-15 as a "machine gun."
But even though Hickey might have been aiming towards the building from which the shots were originating, the stopping of the President's limousine (which SS agent Clint Hill admitted that driver Bill Greer "tapped the brakes to test the tires") caused the follow-up driver to have to stop, which caused Hickey to fall backwards (towards the front of the car) "just like he was shot." Even though the President's car might have just been "starting up" at the time, the follow-up car was stopping, And the Secret Service man fell over "just about the same time the President was shot the second time."
-----
Pierce Allman Same-Day Radio Interview Excerpt
Wherein Allman is specifically asked whether any shots might have been returned, and he specifically says "This is possible." He heard 3 "evenly spaced" shots from the TSBD, and admits the possibility that other shots were "returned."
Wherein Allman is specifically asked whether any shots might have been returned, and he specifically says "This is possible." He heard 3 "evenly spaced" shots from the TSBD, and admits the possibility that other shots were "returned."
-----
Dave Powers, Kenneth O'Donnell, and the Kennedy Family (a Reason to Dissemble)
As for Kennedy aide Dave Powers (who was in the Secret Service follow-up car) “not” hearing the AR-15 shot (which some critics contend was the case, based on reported remarks by Powers in an interview, not sworn testimony)—I believe he did hear it. Someone on another site pointed out that his statement that if Hickey had shot the President “I would have heard it” is not a statement that he did NOT hear it, and may well have been dissemblance. Would Powers have lied in order to protect the Kennedy family from embarrassment? I think it likely, especially since Kennedy’s maternal grandmother was Mary Augusta Hickey. I believe that George Hickey was a relative of Kennedy’s, a second or third cousin, perhaps, especially given that Kennedy “cleared the way” for Hickey (who was 40 years old at the time, and just past the age when one could join the SS, even with a military record) to join the SS. Hickey’s friend Sam Kinney said Hickey was the person who gave Kennedy the PT-109 coconut as an inauguration gift, and said that Hickey “loved Kennedy too well.” If Hickey was indeed a family member, and with Powers being a close friend of the family, it would explain why Powers and the family would have kept quiet.
As for Kennedy aide Dave Powers (who was in the Secret Service follow-up car) “not” hearing the AR-15 shot (which some critics contend was the case, based on reported remarks by Powers in an interview, not sworn testimony)—I believe he did hear it. Someone on another site pointed out that his statement that if Hickey had shot the President “I would have heard it” is not a statement that he did NOT hear it, and may well have been dissemblance. Would Powers have lied in order to protect the Kennedy family from embarrassment? I think it likely, especially since Kennedy’s maternal grandmother was Mary Augusta Hickey. I believe that George Hickey was a relative of Kennedy’s, a second or third cousin, perhaps, especially given that Kennedy “cleared the way” for Hickey (who was 40 years old at the time, and just past the age when one could join the SS, even with a military record) to join the SS. Hickey’s friend Sam Kinney said Hickey was the person who gave Kennedy the PT-109 coconut as an inauguration gift, and said that Hickey “loved Kennedy too well.” If Hickey was indeed a family member, and with Powers being a close friend of the family, it would explain why Powers and the family would have kept quiet.
-----
Jackie Kennedy and the Manchester Tapes
Jackie was described as telling William Manchester that “what was so horrible was the thought that it was an accident, a freak…” I suspect further details of what Jackie knew are why the audio tapes of his interviews with her are still being blocked from public view in the Archives. The withholding are part of the "Deed of Gift" of the tapes from the Kennedy family to the Archives, and given the presumable connection of George Hickey to the Kennedy family (via JFK's grandmother Mary Augusta Hickey and the fact that JFK "cleared the way" for Hickey to join the Secret Service despite Hickey's passing the age limitation), the embarrassment of having the President shot by a family member is probably what is causing the withholding. But in this case, public interest in the truth should outweigh Kennedy family wishes.
Jackie was described as telling William Manchester that “what was so horrible was the thought that it was an accident, a freak…” I suspect further details of what Jackie knew are why the audio tapes of his interviews with her are still being blocked from public view in the Archives. The withholding are part of the "Deed of Gift" of the tapes from the Kennedy family to the Archives, and given the presumable connection of George Hickey to the Kennedy family (via JFK's grandmother Mary Augusta Hickey and the fact that JFK "cleared the way" for Hickey to join the Secret Service despite Hickey's passing the age limitation), the embarrassment of having the President shot by a family member is probably what is causing the withholding. But in this case, public interest in the truth should outweigh Kennedy family wishes.
-----
Reports of an "Accident"
There are numerous accounts of an "accident" occurring in the motorcade:
There are numerous accounts of an "accident" occurring in the motorcade:
- There was a recorded announcement at the Trademark that "There's been a mis-hap in the President's motorcade."
- Parkland Nurse Phyllis Hall was visiting a friend at the Triage Desk when the Chief E.R. Nurse Doris Nelson came up to the desk and said, "There's been an accident in the President's motorcade, and they're on their way (here)."
- Jim Bishop, in The Day Kennedy was Shot, reported Secret Service agent Clint Hill as calling Attorney General Robert Kennedy from Parkland Hospital, and telling him, "There's been an accident... The situation is bad."
- Jackie Kennedy, in describing her grief to William Manchester (The Death of a President) apparently told Manchester "What was so terrible was the thought that it had been an accident, a freak, that an inch or two here, a moment or two there would have reversed history."
- Molly Cruz, who was living in New York at the time, asserts that she heard over the radio that "A Secret Service man accidentally shot the President." (See my interview of Molly Cruz at https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/molly-cruz-interview.html). Sam Pate was in his KBOX van on Stemmons Freeway, and reporting over the radio what he heard on Ch-2. The original Sam Pate broadcast tapes disappeared from the KBOX studio, and the recording that most people believe was an original broadcast ("Something has happened in the motorcade.") is actually a "recreation" made in a studio after Pate was fired from his job on the Monday after the assassination. Pate's firing, the disappearance of the original tape, and the creation of false "evidence" are among the not-so-"benign" effects of the cover-up.
image from "Commission Document 1245 - FBI Gemberling Report of 02 Jul 1964 re: OswaldCommission Document 1245 - FBI Gemberling Report of 02 Jul 1964 re: Oswald..." found at https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11640#relPageId=24
- Ira David Wood wrote a chronology of assassination events, in which he asserts DPD Chief Curry as saying, "There's been an accident. The President has been involved." Wood asserts that this statement was based on a transcript of DPD radio broadcasts. However, this utterance does not appear in most versions of the broadcast transcripts, and does not appear in the extant recordings.
Screenshot from the Ira David Wood chronology found at https://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono2.pdf . Wood asserts that his chronology is based on a transcript of DPD tapes. However, the source of that transcript/tape remains a mystery.
One explanation for the missing utterance might be that the DPD recordings were edited. There is evidence of a "splice" in the Ch-1 recording (the one with the "suspect impulses"), and researcher Donald Thomas asserts that the broadcasts do not line up..
-----
FBI Memos Placing "The Gun" in the Hands of the Secret Service
There are a number of FBI memos that place "the gun" that fired "the bullet that apparently killed the President" in the hands of the Secret Service, specifically, SAIC Forrest Sorrels, who was in charge of the Dallas office, on the same day as the assassination. See "The Shanklin Memo" (https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/the-shanklin-memo.html), and "The Rosen and Loeffler Memos" (https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/the-rosen-and-loeffler-memos.html). These memos are important because the Oswald gun went directly into the hands of the Dallas Police Department, and from there, directly to the FBI--without ever passing through the hands of the Secret Service. The gun/rifle that "apparently killed the President" and "which had allegedly been used to assassinate the President" had to have been the AR-15.
There are a number of FBI memos that place "the gun" that fired "the bullet that apparently killed the President" in the hands of the Secret Service, specifically, SAIC Forrest Sorrels, who was in charge of the Dallas office, on the same day as the assassination. See "The Shanklin Memo" (https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/the-shanklin-memo.html), and "The Rosen and Loeffler Memos" (https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/the-rosen-and-loeffler-memos.html). These memos are important because the Oswald gun went directly into the hands of the Dallas Police Department, and from there, directly to the FBI--without ever passing through the hands of the Secret Service. The gun/rifle that "apparently killed the President" and "which had allegedly been used to assassinate the President" had to have been the AR-15.
-----
AR-15 Immediately Taken Out of Service (Rowley's WC Testimony)
In one of his rare appearances at the hearings of the Commission that bore his name, Chief Justice Earl Warren actually attended the session when Secret Service Chief James Rowley gave his testimony to the Warren Commission, and questioned Rowley directly. From Rowley's testimony, we know that the AR-15 was taken out of the Secret Service arsenal pretty much immediately after the assassination. In fact, it wasn't until many years later--decades, in fact--that the Secret Service adopted any assault-style weapons. Now, however, they wisely position their snipers manning these weapons on stationary rooftops, rather than inside moving cars.
In one of his rare appearances at the hearings of the Commission that bore his name, Chief Justice Earl Warren actually attended the session when Secret Service Chief James Rowley gave his testimony to the Warren Commission, and questioned Rowley directly. From Rowley's testimony, we know that the AR-15 was taken out of the Secret Service arsenal pretty much immediately after the assassination. In fact, it wasn't until many years later--decades, in fact--that the Secret Service adopted any assault-style weapons. Now, however, they wisely position their snipers manning these weapons on stationary rooftops, rather than inside moving cars.
Excerpt from Secret Service Chief James Rowley's Warren Commission testimony, wherein Chief Justice Earl Warren asked Rowley about "submachine guns" (the AR-15) that Rowley initially tried to hedge on "for security reasons" before admitting that they "don't have (machine-guns/AR-15's) NOW," then clarifying that the agents "had" a "new weapon." The past tense indicated that the weapon was no longer in the arsenal at the time of Rowley's testimony. The Chief Justice then proceeded to rake Rowley over the coals for the numerous agents who had been out drinking the night before and into the early morning hours of the day of the assassination.
-----
Hickey's Agitated State
George Hickey was apparently in an agitated state at Parkland Hospital. There were reports that an agent with a "submachine gun" clobbered an FBI agent before the FBI agent could identify himself. There was also an account that the agent who drove the President's car back to Love Field (Hickey) was "white as a ghost" and had to be helped aboard the plane.
George Hickey was apparently in an agitated state at Parkland Hospital. There were reports that an agent with a "submachine gun" clobbered an FBI agent before the FBI agent could identify himself. There was also an account that the agent who drove the President's car back to Love Field (Hickey) was "white as a ghost" and had to be helped aboard the plane.
Excerpt from Governor John Connally's book "In History's Shadow" describing an emotionally distraught Secret Service agent who caused everyone in the room to "hit the floor," and who "slugged" a man in a business suit, who subsequently identified himself as "FBI."
Excerpt from Vince Palamara's book "Survivor's Guilt." The agent who drove JFK's car back to the plane and who was "white as a ghost" and had to be helped aboard the plane was George Hickey.
-----
CIA Chief Admitted to a "Benign Cover-Up"
In October, 2015, declassified CIA documents revealed that John McCone (head of the CIA from November, 1961 to April, 1965) admitted that the Agency participated in a “benign cover- up” that was “intended to keep the Warren Commission focused on ‘what the Agency believed at the time was the ‘best truth’—that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy.’” See https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197/.
In October, 2015, declassified CIA documents revealed that John McCone (head of the CIA from November, 1961 to April, 1965) admitted that the Agency participated in a “benign cover- up” that was “intended to keep the Warren Commission focused on ‘what the Agency believed at the time was the ‘best truth’—that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy.’” See https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197/.
-----
Decorticate Posture "Chest Grab"
Spoiler alert: Hickey’s accidental slam-fire shot came after Kennedy had already been struck in the head by the TSBD shooter (Oswald).
The AR-15 slam fire shooting was absolutely not Hickey’s fault. Moreover, Kennedy was already severely neurologically damaged by the first TSBD/Oswald shot (as evidenced by the decorticate posture ‘chest grab” position and his slump/lean/fall towards Jackie.
Kennedy's "chest grab" or "throat grab" was not Kennedy “trying to cough up a bullet” but was evidence of brain damage. See the “Lazarus Sign” video (which I show in my documentary) about a young “ brain dead” patient going into that same “chest grab” position after being shot in the head, on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nty6bICZlyA . With JFK, his head was not being manipulated by doctors, but he was confined in the limousine, and as he lost consciousness and “slumped” (as witnesses described him as doing). Nor was he lying on a table. JFK was seated in the confines of the limousine when he was shot. It was gravity and the loss of consciousness that caused his head to drop and triggered the same reflex as seen in the "Lazarus Sign" video.
Spoiler alert: Hickey’s accidental slam-fire shot came after Kennedy had already been struck in the head by the TSBD shooter (Oswald).
The AR-15 slam fire shooting was absolutely not Hickey’s fault. Moreover, Kennedy was already severely neurologically damaged by the first TSBD/Oswald shot (as evidenced by the decorticate posture ‘chest grab” position and his slump/lean/fall towards Jackie.
Kennedy's "chest grab" or "throat grab" was not Kennedy “trying to cough up a bullet” but was evidence of brain damage. See the “Lazarus Sign” video (which I show in my documentary) about a young “ brain dead” patient going into that same “chest grab” position after being shot in the head, on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nty6bICZlyA . With JFK, his head was not being manipulated by doctors, but he was confined in the limousine, and as he lost consciousness and “slumped” (as witnesses described him as doing). Nor was he lying on a table. JFK was seated in the confines of the limousine when he was shot. It was gravity and the loss of consciousness that caused his head to drop and triggered the same reflex as seen in the "Lazarus Sign" video.
-----
Acoustical Matches
My scenario not only matches witness accounts, it also matches the acoustical evidence. During the events in Dallas, a motorcycle officer's microphone was stuck in the "on" position and recorded sounds matching the muzzle blast+echo pattern of test shots fired from the TSBD window and the "Grassy Knoll" test shot location. The HSCA acoustical experts found 5 "suspect impulses" in the Dallas Police Department's evidence recording (utilizing a dicta belt) whose patterns closely matched those of the test shots.
I contend that the acoustical evidence is valid, name the motorcade officer who had the "bike with the mike" (not H.B. McLain, as the HSCA claimed), and explain how each shot in my scenario matches the acoustical evidence.
The chart below summarizes the acoustical evidence presented by the HSCA acoustical experts:
My scenario not only matches witness accounts, it also matches the acoustical evidence. During the events in Dallas, a motorcycle officer's microphone was stuck in the "on" position and recorded sounds matching the muzzle blast+echo pattern of test shots fired from the TSBD window and the "Grassy Knoll" test shot location. The HSCA acoustical experts found 5 "suspect impulses" in the Dallas Police Department's evidence recording (utilizing a dicta belt) whose patterns closely matched those of the test shots.
I contend that the acoustical evidence is valid, name the motorcade officer who had the "bike with the mike" (not H.B. McLain, as the HSCA claimed), and explain how each shot in my scenario matches the acoustical evidence.
The chart below summarizes the acoustical evidence presented by the HSCA acoustical experts:
As the summary chart above shows, there were five total "suspect impulses" found in the dicta belt tape. There was also an impulse before, and an impulse after these five, which the acoustical experts rejected as "false positives" due to a mis-match in both echo pattern and amplitude (volume) to test shots fired from the TSBD 6th floor window and the Grassy Knoll. This rejection was premature, in my view. However, I don't believe these were assassination shots. The initial rejected shot may have been a warning fired by one of Johnson's protective agents who, being farther back, had a better view of the shooter's window (see Warren Taylor's door opening in the Marie Muchmore film). The last rejected impulse may have been for a shot fired by an overzealous DPD officer or Secret Service agent who rushed up the Knoll after the last assassination shot, and may account for the "pool of blood" reported at the top of the stairs. But those two rejected impulses will not be addressed in this section.
-----
Givens (Addressed Elsewhere on this Website)
My scenario depends upon a number of givens that many will find difficult to accept. It is not my intention to discuss all these here, as I spend much time elsewhere on my site discussing them. However, they bear mentioning, as they are critical aspects to my scenario. The arguments for these "givens" are provided in the links to other articles on this website:
My scenario depends upon a number of givens that many will find difficult to accept. It is not my intention to discuss all these here, as I spend much time elsewhere on my site discussing them. However, they bear mentioning, as they are critical aspects to my scenario. The arguments for these "givens" are provided in the links to other articles on this website:
- The extant Zapruder Film, as we know it, is an extensively altered product. More and more researchers are coming to understand this. It cannot be relied upon as authentic evidence of anything, especially regarding the exact sequence of events. The work of optics expert Dr. John Costella and ARRB analyst Doug Horne contribute greatly to the body of knowledge of Z-film alteration, and I recommend studying their work as a starting place for those who still think the film is "authentic." I even have a few observations of my own to add. See "Zapruder Film Alteration."
- The autopsy X-rays and photographs, as we know them, are altered products. Again, more and more researchers are coming to understand this, as well. The work of radiologist and physicist Dr. David Mantik, supported by the work of neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser, should be studied by those who think these images are "authentic." We also have statements by White House photographers Robert Knudsen (as reported by Knudsen's family) and Joe O'Donnell regarding alterations to the autopsy photographs, as well as under-oath ARRB testimony by navy corpsman Saundra Kay Spencer, who processed the original autopsy images in 1963, about there being "no correspondence" between the images she saw then, and the extant images she was shown during her ARRB deposition. I have some observations of my own to add as to how the "computer-assisted" lateral X-ray (more readily found online than the "un-enhanced" HSCA-published X-ray) was created with the help of the "living" right lateral X-ray. See "What the Doctors Saw--Evidence of Image Alteration" and "HSCA Published X-rays."
- There was a back of the head blow-out, but not a "front" of the head blow-out. The vast majority of witnesses at Parkland and the Bethesda autopsy described a blow-out hole at the back of the President's head, not the front. The sworn testimony of the Parkland doctors described the hole as "occipital" (back of the head) or sometimes "occipital-parietal" (back and side of the head). In fact, nurse Audrey Bell had to ask where Kennedy was wounded as he lay face up on the stretcher, and the head was lifted so she could see the hole at the back. The recently released documentary "What the Doctors Saw" is just one of many sources that describes this back of the head blow-out, wherein the doctors describe their puzzlement over the extant autopsy images.
Image from "JFK: What the Doctors Saw," showing a scalp laceration on the side of the head, and a hole at the back of the head, taken from https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/jfk-assassination-parkland-hospital-doctors-entrance-wound-two-gunmen-1234876218/
All this is not to say that that the Z-film and autopsy images have no value whatsoever. For one thing, the evidence of alteration shows the extent to which certain individuals were willing to go along with the cover-up. For another thing, even the altered extant X-rays show evidence of two head shots (one from the front, one from the rear), with the too-high bullet particle trail (too-high to match either the autopsy EOP entry or the Clark Panel/HSCA "cowlick" entry points--but just the right height for the forehead entry, given my own observations).
It is not my intent to re-debate the authenticity of the Zapruder Film or autopsy images in this article. I do that elsewhere on this website. Researchers on the Education Forum "JFK Assassination Debate" threads have argued their perspectives endlessly. I personally have found that those who argue that the Zapruder Film and autopsy images are "authentic" refuse to budge from their dug-in positions supporting authenticity despite whatever evidence to the contrary is presented. Moreover, the "alterationists," who accept that the Z-film and autopsy images have been altered, generally have their own pet theories of the assassination, often involving shooters positioned at the Dal-Tex building, the Triple Underpass area, the Grassy Knoll, etc. This latter group often cites evidence of CIA involvement in evidence alteration and the extremely interesting Oswald/CIA connections as "evidence" of a "Deep State Conspiracy to Murder the President." The dug-in nature of these positions is why I doubt my solution will ever receive the wide-spread acceptance I feel it deserves. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this solution is correct.
-----
Cover-Up vs. "Conspiracy to Murder"
While I accept that there was a Deep State Conspiracy to cover-up an embarrassing Secret Service accident, and while I do not pretend to address the motives of the TSBD shooter (probably Oswald), I am not at this point convinced that there were U.S. government motives behind the TSBD shooter. I do give a good explanation for the cover-up other than a Deep State plan to murder the President. What I do, specifically, is give an accounting for the shots fired in Dealey Plaza that day. My accounting aligns with the acoustical evidence--especially if one accepts that there was a certain amount of cover-up involved in the presentation of the acoustical evidence, such as running the the Automatic Gain Control or AGC (evidence of the recording having been processed through AGC), and the "mic placement diagram"--which was created by someone (James Barger) who was not actually present for the acoustical testing, and who drew up the diagram based on a description of "street features" that is not available for public perusal or verification. (Barger doesn't know where that description might be found.) I contend that the "bike with the mic" belonged to motorcade escort officer Douglas Jackson, whose actions (as the purported "knoll rider") would have matched the non-gunshot impulse sounds (such as the engine noises) recorded onto the dicta belt. I address the acoustics more specifically in Part 9 of my documentary series.
For the moment, I just want to be clear that I do not address the motives of the TSBD shooter, or even whether it was Oswald. Others contend that the shooter was someone other than Oswald. It is not my intention to argue the identity of the TSBD shooter, so if I say "Oswald," it is for convenience sake as he was commonly supposed to be the TSBD shooter. I leave it to others to prove or disprove his identity. However, I do contend that there was only one intended assassin, in the TSBD sixth floor window. What I do is give an accounting of the shots that matches with the evidence, including the acoustical evidence, the "3" reportedly fired from the TSBD window (plus others fired from within the motorcade), the evidence reported by Dr. David Mantik and others of two head shots (one fired from the front, one from the rear), and other "conspiracy" evidence--but without reaching the conclusion of a Deep State conspiracy to murder the President.
Basically, I explain why a cover-up was desired. There was an embarrassing sequence of events, especially involving an accidental slam-fire discharge of the AR-15 weapon being handled by a four-months new Secret Service agent. This unintended shot accidentally struck Kennedy in the head for the second time, after he had already been struck in the head by the assassin's bullet.
While I accept that there was a Deep State Conspiracy to cover-up an embarrassing Secret Service accident, and while I do not pretend to address the motives of the TSBD shooter (probably Oswald), I am not at this point convinced that there were U.S. government motives behind the TSBD shooter. I do give a good explanation for the cover-up other than a Deep State plan to murder the President. What I do, specifically, is give an accounting for the shots fired in Dealey Plaza that day. My accounting aligns with the acoustical evidence--especially if one accepts that there was a certain amount of cover-up involved in the presentation of the acoustical evidence, such as running the the Automatic Gain Control or AGC (evidence of the recording having been processed through AGC), and the "mic placement diagram"--which was created by someone (James Barger) who was not actually present for the acoustical testing, and who drew up the diagram based on a description of "street features" that is not available for public perusal or verification. (Barger doesn't know where that description might be found.) I contend that the "bike with the mic" belonged to motorcade escort officer Douglas Jackson, whose actions (as the purported "knoll rider") would have matched the non-gunshot impulse sounds (such as the engine noises) recorded onto the dicta belt. I address the acoustics more specifically in Part 9 of my documentary series.
For the moment, I just want to be clear that I do not address the motives of the TSBD shooter, or even whether it was Oswald. Others contend that the shooter was someone other than Oswald. It is not my intention to argue the identity of the TSBD shooter, so if I say "Oswald," it is for convenience sake as he was commonly supposed to be the TSBD shooter. I leave it to others to prove or disprove his identity. However, I do contend that there was only one intended assassin, in the TSBD sixth floor window. What I do is give an accounting of the shots that matches with the evidence, including the acoustical evidence, the "3" reportedly fired from the TSBD window (plus others fired from within the motorcade), the evidence reported by Dr. David Mantik and others of two head shots (one fired from the front, one from the rear), and other "conspiracy" evidence--but without reaching the conclusion of a Deep State conspiracy to murder the President.
Basically, I explain why a cover-up was desired. There was an embarrassing sequence of events, especially involving an accidental slam-fire discharge of the AR-15 weapon being handled by a four-months new Secret Service agent. This unintended shot accidentally struck Kennedy in the head for the second time, after he had already been struck in the head by the assassin's bullet.
-----
Different from Donahue's Original Theory
If you are familiar with Donahue's original theory, you already know that he posited only one head shot (the accidental AR-15 head shot), accepted the Clark Panel/HSCA revised "cowlick" entry to the head (much above the original "EOP" back of the head entry), and accepted the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) as true. However, I contend that there were two head shots (one from Oswald, one from the AR-15). I also accept the autopsy doctor's "EOP" entry location (supported by Dr. Mantik's analysis of the Harper Fragment), and consider the SBT to be B.S. So there are three obvious differences right there.
Specifically, my scenario differs from Donahue's original AR-15 scenario, the (altered) Zapruder Film, and the scenarios posited by most other researchers in the following ways:
These contentions are not made out of whole cloth. My scenario is evidence-based. Until there is a public admission of what happened, some will argue that my solution is "theory" rather than "fact." However, my solution fits all the evidence that runs counter to the official scenario (officially, only three shots fired, all from Oswald, all from behind), and is, I believe, the correct solution. My solution explains all the evidence of cover-up and the reason behind the cover-up, but without making the leap into a belief of a Deep State Conspiracy to "murder" the President--but only a conspiracy to cover-up embarrassing events.
So, matching the five "suspect impulses" in the acoustical evidence, and without delving much into the impulse before the five (which I believe to have been a warning shot) or the impulse after the five (which I believe to have been a shot fired by an overzealous DPD officer or Secret Service agent), here is my five-shot scenario (which match the "suspect impulses" in the acoustical evidence):
If you are familiar with Donahue's original theory, you already know that he posited only one head shot (the accidental AR-15 head shot), accepted the Clark Panel/HSCA revised "cowlick" entry to the head (much above the original "EOP" back of the head entry), and accepted the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) as true. However, I contend that there were two head shots (one from Oswald, one from the AR-15). I also accept the autopsy doctor's "EOP" entry location (supported by Dr. Mantik's analysis of the Harper Fragment), and consider the SBT to be B.S. So there are three obvious differences right there.
Specifically, my scenario differs from Donahue's original AR-15 scenario, the (altered) Zapruder Film, and the scenarios posited by most other researchers in the following ways:
- an accounting of shots that closely matches the five "suspect impulses" found in the acoustical evidence. Even though my sources for all the shots does not exactly match the acoustical "attribution" matches, I give plausible explanations for the "muzzle withdrawn" TSBD acoustical match and the "Grassy Knoll" acoustical match (explaining why the echo patterns in the evidence tape matched those of the test shots). The "double-bang" of the last two suspect impulses matches the "double-bang" of witness accounts. (There was also an impulse before and an impulse after the "assassination" sequence in the evidence tape, which were rejected as not having sufficient volume or the echo pattern of either of the two test-shot locations. This rejection was, in my view, premature. I think that the first pre-assassination impulse was likely a warning shot fired by one of Johnson's Secret Service agents on Houston Street, and the last post-assassination impulse might have been a shot fired by an over-zealous Secret Service agent or DPD officer firing at a civilian bystander at the top of the stairs, thus accounting for the reported pool of blood at the top of the stairs. I feel that these two impulses were rejected prematurely. However, neither one of these acoustical non-match shots struck anyone in the limousine, and were outside of the "assassination" sequence.)
- Two head shots, from opposite directions. (Donahue only posited one.) I contend that the first of the two head shots occurred far sooner than most other researchers posit, about 2.5 seconds before the Altgens 6 photo was taken, when the limousine was just at the end of the turn onto Elm Street. This first head shot came from the TSBD shooter (Oswald?), striking Kennedy in the forehead above the right eye. The second head shot occurred not when the limousine was in the Z313 position (that is a fake head shot), but when the limousine was somewhat farther down Elm Street (matching the FBI model location and witness accounts like that of Mary Moorman).
- Separate shots striking Kennedy and Connally--i.e., no "Single Bullet Theory."
- More than 3 total shots fired (although only 3 were fired by the assassin in the TSBD window), aligning with the original 5 "suspect impulses" in the acoustical evidence. In addition to the TSBD shooter (Oswald?) there were at least two Secret Service shooters. The unintended consequences of their shots (minor for one, major for the other) contributed to the desire for the cover-up.
These contentions are not made out of whole cloth. My scenario is evidence-based. Until there is a public admission of what happened, some will argue that my solution is "theory" rather than "fact." However, my solution fits all the evidence that runs counter to the official scenario (officially, only three shots fired, all from Oswald, all from behind), and is, I believe, the correct solution. My solution explains all the evidence of cover-up and the reason behind the cover-up, but without making the leap into a belief of a Deep State Conspiracy to "murder" the President--but only a conspiracy to cover-up embarrassing events.
So, matching the five "suspect impulses" in the acoustical evidence, and without delving much into the impulse before the five (which I believe to have been a warning shot) or the impulse after the five (which I believe to have been a shot fired by an overzealous DPD officer or Secret Service agent), here is my five-shot scenario (which match the "suspect impulses" in the acoustical evidence):
-----
Next:
Medical experts studying the JFK assassination have come to the conclusion that there were two head shots. It may seem hard to believe, but the first (Oswald) shot was a head shot--and there is evidence to support this notion! Of course, that is not what the Zapruder film shows, but more and more researchers are coming to the conclusion that the Zapruder film, as we know it, is a forged, altered product. That's why one of the "givens" addressed above is that the extant Z-film is an inauthentic, altered product. Once you realize that the extant Z-film is not valid evidence of anything, then the evidence for the Oswald first shot as the "Kill Shot" makes sense. So if you are unfamiliar with the arguments against the Zapruder film authenticity, read that first. If you are already aware of the problems surrounding the film and its provenance, and already know enough to mistrust what the film shows, then go ahead and read about Shot One. Otherwise, read about Zapruder Film Alteration before continuing with the Shot 1 information.
Zapruder Film Alteration
What Happened - Shot 1
Medical experts studying the JFK assassination have come to the conclusion that there were two head shots. It may seem hard to believe, but the first (Oswald) shot was a head shot--and there is evidence to support this notion! Of course, that is not what the Zapruder film shows, but more and more researchers are coming to the conclusion that the Zapruder film, as we know it, is a forged, altered product. That's why one of the "givens" addressed above is that the extant Z-film is an inauthentic, altered product. Once you realize that the extant Z-film is not valid evidence of anything, then the evidence for the Oswald first shot as the "Kill Shot" makes sense. So if you are unfamiliar with the arguments against the Zapruder film authenticity, read that first. If you are already aware of the problems surrounding the film and its provenance, and already know enough to mistrust what the film shows, then go ahead and read about Shot One. Otherwise, read about Zapruder Film Alteration before continuing with the Shot 1 information.
Zapruder Film Alteration
What Happened - Shot 1